I can see one major consequence - it encourages players to do nothing, especially in a No Spoils game. Odds are that when you're attacking, you're bound to lose at least one troop and since the win condition is based on troop count, the most effective strategy with a round limit is simply going to be to stack your troops. I can see games where nobody does anything for 19 rounds, then the player that happens to have the luck of last turn wins by knocking everyone else down in troop count.

That being said, I think it's a great addition, notably for tournaments and speed games. It should increase Flat Rate and No Spoils games in both sections. I just won't play it much unless/until my above concern is proven moot.

eagleblade22 wrote:i think there should be an option when choose a map like "doesnt matter" or something

lackattack wrote:Presenting... Round Limits!

The possile values for this new game option are None, 20 Rounds, 50 Rounds or 100 Rounds.

With round limits, the game will automatically finish at the end of the specified round. The winner will be the surviving player with the most troops. If there is a tie, it will be broken based on the most regions. If there is still a tie, the winner is selected based on join order. This option is great for avoiding stalemates on no spoils games and can add some spice to the game as the deadline approaches, forcing the big guys to fight it out and giving the little guys a chance!

eagleblade22 wrote:yes but then you cant join games that DO have limits

Army of GOD wrote:

eagleblade22 wrote:i think there should be an option when choose a map like "doesnt matter" or something

lackattack wrote:Presenting... Round Limits!

The possile values for this new game option are None, 20 Rounds, 50 Rounds or 100 Rounds.

With round limits, the game will automatically finish at the end of the specified round. The winner will be the surviving player with the most troops. If there is a tie, it will be broken based on the most regions. If there is still a tie, the winner is selected based on join order. This option is great for avoiding stalemates on no spoils games and can add some spice to the game as the deadline approaches, forcing the big guys to fight it out and giving the little guys a chance!

clapper011 wrote:so can this be applied to past games still running?????

I am guessing the answer would be no, imagine the hassle of dealing with the endless debates from players if it were possible - there would be a seperate thread for each stalemated game and by the time the players came to an agreement, they would be over anyway

At first blush, I loved the idea. Imposing a turn limit is a great way to avoid those endless "reinforce and hold" games with no RISK (or even Fixed value Risk). CC is very responsive to players needs.

But there were several ways to do it. Determine the winner by number of territories held, by the bonus received or by number of men. Someone chose number of men, but I really think one of the alternatives (or a combination) might have been better.

Now as the clock approaches midnight in a multi-player game, everyone is trying to avoid attacking anyone else. It's pretty clear who's NOT gonna win, and any player who recognizes that fact can determine the winner by attacking the leading rival. So the temptation to suicide is going to be very strong, and the ultimate reward goes to the player who didn't piss anyone off. That tends to minimize strategy over diplomacy, and players who know each other will be far more likely to cooperate "in the end game" then they are now.

But if the primary factor was territories or bonuses, it's different (and I think better). The player who is strategic enough to barricade themselves off from multiple attackers, while racing around and ensuring no one else has a higher territory count, or bonus count, probably deserves to win. The downside is that it offers a real disadvantage to the guy that goes first.

I suspect the optimum way would be to choose the winner based upon several factors.

Total number of bonusesTotal number of territories (factors different if different number of territories in the variant)The remaining number of men

It might be more complex to figure out, but that is GOOD because it gives a player several ways to win, the point weighing reflects the actual strategy considerations, the special suicide end game strategy is minimized, and it would provide several strategies for winning as the turn clock ticked down, instead of only one.

Is the current "end value" computation of this new variant written in stone?

Does it open new avenues of abuse? Whilst I love the concept and implementation (though I doubt I'll ever use it) I can see instances where in multiplayer singles games one guy (who cannot win) simply scuppers the chances of a player in order that his friend or clanmate can win it. In a normal game he wouldn't do this as the 'victim' would have a chance in the next round to eliminate the suicider, but if it got to the last turn in R20 and the suicider has nothing to lose then I can definitely foresee instances of favouritism coming into play, and I think this may be the cause of a lot of illwill in future. Guess we'll have to wait and see.

Do people not realize that this changes the entire strategy of the game. Clearly everyone knows who is going to win as it starts coming down to the end and they are going to make the moves they think are best but if anything i think this addition encourages people to attack more throughout the game and not stack as much. Either way this is a good update, people can complain all they want and say it should have been done differently but i dont see how. Clearly if we are in round 19 people are going to know that the end is near and attacking will ensue so that everyone can try to put themselves in the best position. It does give a bit of an advantage to the last player to play...but seeing as that is random and being last is a disadvantage, i dont see how that is a problem.

Agree with this 100%, nothing to me is more frustrating and exhausting than playing a game for months, then making a tiebreaker which also goes into a stalemate situation. Great idea lack, a must do if you ask me.

ljex wrote:Do people not realize that this changes the entire strategy of the game. Clearly everyone knows who is going to win as it starts coming down to the end and they are going to make the moves they think are best but if anything i think this addition encourages people to attack more throughout the game and not stack as much. Either way this is a good update, people can complain all they want and say it should have been done differently but i dont see how. Clearly if we are in round 19 people are going to know that the end is near and attacking will ensue so that everyone can try to put themselves in the best position. It does give a bit of an advantage to the last player to play...but seeing as that is random and being last is a disadvantage, i dont see how that is a problem.

Good update lack

While I agree mostly with your analysis, I think it's going to cause players to stack more early instead of attacking. Most notably in the short games (20 rounds), I suspect players are going to conserve troops as much as possible in the first 15 or so rounds, then it will be 5 rounds of all out suiciding to determine the winner.

It reminds me a bit of NASCAR - the first 490 laps are just driving in circles trying to stay in a position where you have the possibility of winning, and the last 10 are actually for racing.